Does God need redefining?

...yet at the same time I have become ashamed to openly voice disbelief due to the immature militant wing of atheism that seems to grow almost
as fast as a new religion itself.

Atheism is still finding it's voice - it didn't really have a voice or a choice in this world until very recently

It's going to come on pretty strong for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is shaking off the shackles of oppression

That's right - I said it: shackles of oppression :-)

And feygan - that wasn't directed at you

There's all kinds of atheists - pretty much like you'd expect. But - this ain't over 'til it's over, and until we're allowed to live out our
beliefs with the same amount of freedom and respect as anyone else - there's going to be some pushing and some shoving. Religion still wants to call
all the shots - and until some people (let's be clear - not all people - it's definitely a specific few) learn that no means no - there's going to
be some resistance

If God can be redefined, then wouldn't that invalidate the past definition? Good luck with that.

There are so many people out there who KNOW their version of god is the correct one, and the other guy is wrong. They will never accept any
redefinition and will continue to practice their own personal version of the religion.

Redefining God is nothing more that making up another version of religion to add to the thousands upon thousands of others that already exist.

Below is the answer I gave when we were asked a similar question on an older thread;

"The Creator.
That which is not the Universe, but the originator of the Universe.

I'd like to expand the original definition
(very cautiously, because Philosophy isn't really my field)

Let's make it a really trinitarian one;

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Becasue that's the only way to account for
the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of
the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also
inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.

I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God."

A favorite example - but was there ever a form of communism that wasn't also fascism? Religion wasn't tolerated - true. Is there an obvious difference
between different kinds of intolerance?

Fascism is never big on live and let live. If you want to pretend that it's different that's up to you - but religious fanaticism and fascism look and
feel just fine if you happen to be religious. Our most recent and current wars have been religious wars. One side or the other - one way or the
other

Were the communists communists because they had a choice? Were they actually atheists - by choice?

All the atheists I know in real life are pacifists

Edit to add that we're off topic - and my last reply was meant for the OP. Angry atheists make him feel uncomfortable - and ashamed. I get that. If
we're going to talk about redefining God, I think it's important to understand why we might want to do that in the first place. We can't have this
conversation without including disbelief. Faith is definitely in yin/yang territory if you ask me :-)

Well, when I speak of my Heavenly Father, I do not claim to know anything more specific than I was created by something fantastic from "Heaven"
(space). the Wiccan do believe in a celestial lady. sparks from her hair to create the stars. Animism seems to go both ways most of the time, Celtic
Polytheism stems from the iron age, Gaelic Mythology, still very celestially based.

I don't try to claim that heaven is a paradise full of white people and drunk angels and "God" on his throne throwing family members at new
arrivals... or 72 virgins or other nonsense. I claim that Heaven is that area anywhere but earth. Father is purely the means we came to exist. To me,
this word holds no gender in it's significance, which is the creation (or heavy, sudden modification) of this reptilian based vessel we pilot.

Also, I think I have no freaking clue about any of it. It's just part of my belief that I can't understand this divinity, An awesome power from
something above my plain of existence brought my thoughts to be, and simply because I think those thoughts, I cannot think outside them and certainly
not above them. One thing that I do see as offensive is the word "Father"

it is defined as male on earth. Well... "heavenly source" then. I don't friggen care, but it's pretty hard to find a religion without any ties to
creation.

The op has asked if God needs to be redefined and after giving it thoughts on the subject the following can be stated:

The first question that should be asked, is how do you define what by its nature cannot be defined? There is a quote that comes from Babylon 5:
Catherine Sakai: Ambassador! While I was out there, I saw something. What was it?
G'Kar: [points to a flower with a bug crawling on it] What is this?
Catherine Sakai: An ant.
G'Kar: Ant.
Catherine Sakai: So much gets shipped up from Earth on commercial transports it's hard to keep them out.
G'Kar: Yeah, I have just picked it up on the tip of my glove. If I put it down again, and it asks another ant, "what was that?",
[laughs]
G'Kar: how would it explain? There are things in the universe billions of years older than either of our races. They're vast, timeless, and if
they're aware of us at all, it is as little more than ants, and we have as much chance of communicating with them as an ant has with us. We know,
we've tried, and we've learned that we can either stay out from underfoot or be stepped on.

The problem with religion is that is not God, it is not the message, but the people. All religions have degenerated. The messages and lessons have
been corrupted, and go beyond what should have been. It is not the fault of any one person, we were born and taught this as the way, but the way is
wrong. The followers, priests, laypersons all have been following what they believe, yet cannot see the forest from the mass of trees in front of
them. The mystery is gone; the belief is corrupted and therein lies the main problem.

As a species, we try to define who we are, and our place in the universe. What was once considered to be miraculous is now explained by science, and
yet that one thing, the core belief of faith, no matter how faulty or incorrect remains. And people use that faith as weapons, as an excuse to
justify their actions. God mandates this, God supports that. Yet the reality is that we really do not know what God really thinks. And the
hypocrisy shows up like a candle in absolute darkness.

Think about it, someone like Ted Bundy or John Gacy can repent and die, get into heaven, serial killers, and yet, a homosexual who has done nothing
wrong is banned for all eternity. The message as I stated, has degenerated and is now used as a weapon, splitting the people, instead of guiding
them, being something to be reviled, rather than embraced, laymen and priests who either commit the greatest of crimes, and sins, yet do not get
punished.

The facts are, that it is the people, the believers, the priests, the lay persons, who fail to follow the belief, who refuse to change their minds,
that is at fault. If it was that simple to put all of your problems into the hands of someone divine, then why do the priests, monks, nuns, and
layperson, why do they have as many problems as everyone else? The holy texts that so many hold so dear, thousands of pages written, they are not
there just to take up time, but to guide and show how to live, act and think. If it was as simple as putting your problems and faith into the divine,
then all of those who were faithful would have no problems. But they don’t change, the same mind set remains and ultimately the same problems come
around. That is the problem with religion in general, it is that no one wants to change their mind, to take the steps of changing the way they think
and their life conditions to have no problems, preferring the easy way and the way that leads to suffering.

There is no such thing as time. Time is not a physical property, it is a tool of space-time for measurement as defined by the observer. See the
double slit experiment. Is your concept of time, the same as mine? The observation of the "passing" of time changes depending on numerous variables,
even your mental state of mind.

What if whatever is on the 4d side of the Singularity is consciousness itself?
Here is a visualization. I think the event horizon of
that 4d singularity, is 3d space, and thus is the Image of God. It is protected from the singularity, just like one of those articles I linked tells
us, but wraps around it.

Example: Can you "See" your consciousness? Or, can you only measure it's effect on your brain and body, using external instruments? Where does it
come from?

We live in a paradox. Everything is nowhere and everywhere at the same time.

time is a measurement, just like distance and weight. without time, nothing could happen because theres no interval by which to allow a change in
energy. everything would be frozen. you have mistaken translation for illusion.

Yes. There are stages of religious development with humans, both from an individual standpoint as well as a group standpoint. I read a book years
ago, The Death of the Mythic God by Jim Marion, that resonated with me.

Here is Mr. Marion’s description of the Mythic stage, the one humanity appears ready to go beyond:

“They believe that God, the mythic God, is a being who is separate from us, lives in the sky (heaven), and intervenes in human affairs whenever
believers petition him to do so (God is almost always a “him”). They believe in the literal truth of the myths of their religion (for example, God
created the world in six calendar days; Mohammed literally ascended into heaven from the site in Jerusalem marked by the Dome of the Rock; Jesus,
unlike other humans, was born in a miraculous manner that left his mother a physical virgin). They see themselves as good and unbelievers as evil.
They seek to use the power of the state to impose their beliefs upon unbelievers. They believe that God is on their side and that they are charged
with converting the entire world to their beliefs, even if they have to use force to do so.”

And this is what has happened with that stage:

Mythic consciousness, however, was a great step forward from the world of tribes because you did not need to meet the even more materialistic
requirement of blood kinship to belong. Anyone could be converted and belong. True, it was far below the level of consciousness that Jesus and his
disciples preached. But most Christians, even in the early Church, were incapable of understanding Jesus except in a mythic way. They thought
mythically and saw the world mythically. So Christianity, despite what Jesus and his disciples said and wrote, was soon reduced to the level of
mythic consciousness and, for the most part, has stayed that way, at least at the popular level, for most of these last two thousand
years.

It is not easy to transcend what we are used to, but it must be done for growth. At some point we learn to walk by clinging to objects; if we refuse
to walk without clinging to objects, we never learn to walk on our own.

A favorite example - but was there ever a form of communism that wasn't also fascism? Religion wasn't tolerated - true. Is there an obvious
difference between different kinds of intolerance?

Fascism is never big on live and let live. If you want to pretend that it's different that's up to you - but religious fanaticism and fascism look
and feel just fine if you happen to be religious. Our most recent and current wars have been religious wars. One side or the other - one way or the
other

Draw a horizontal line across a piece of paper. This line represents economic systems. At the far left end, write Communism. Closer to the center but
still on the left side write Socialism. On the far right end, write fascism. Closer to the center but still on the right side write Capitalism. Those
are all economic systems on a spectrum of left to right. Note that Communism and Fascism are very different economic systems.

Now draw a vertical line on the paper that intersects the horizontal line. This vertical line represents social systems. At the bottom of the
vertical line, write Freedom. At the top of the line, write Totalitarianism. Place a dot on the page where each of the economic systems falls on the
social scale. Communism (as practiced in the real world as compared to theoretically) and Fascism both are Totalitarian social systems. I know this
is off topic but I hope it clears up a common confusion about economic systems and social systems.

Well, when I speak of my Heavenly Father, I do not claim to know anything more specific than I was created by something fantastic from "Heaven"
(space). the Wiccan do believe in a celestial lady. sparks from her hair to create the stars. Animism seems to go both ways most of the time, Celtic
Polytheism stems from the iron age, Gaelic Mythology, still very celestially based.

I don't try to claim that heaven is a paradise full of white people and drunk angels and "God" on his throne throwing family members at new
arrivals... or 72 virgins or other nonsense. I claim that Heaven is that area anywhere but earth. Father is purely the means we came to exist. To me,
this word holds no gender in it's significance, which is the creation (or heavy, sudden modification) of this reptilian based vessel we pilot.

Also, I think I have no freaking clue about any of it. It's just part of my belief that I can't understand this divinity, An awesome power from
something above my plain of existence brought my thoughts to be, and simply because I think those thoughts, I cannot think outside them and certainly
not above them. One thing that I do see as offensive is the word "Father"

it is defined as male on earth. Well... "heavenly source" then. I don't friggen care, but it's pretty hard to find a religion without any ties to
creation.

I don't know where you got your ideas about WIcca, animism, and Celtic polytheism, but they're not correct.

The notion that "Father" doesn't imply maleness is absurd.

There are thousands of religion. I suggest that you not speak for any but your own.

Interesting view and video, but at the same time here is the question:

What is more valuable, reading about something or experiencing it? Do you not think that if a person followed the teachings, down to all of the
prohibitions that are inscribed, would it not make that person have a fully different outlook, as opposed to just reading and saying they
understand?

But as you brought up the video let us take a look at said video. Much of what they state is in the different books and texts that many religious
people read. Personal responsibility is not a novel concept, rather it has been around since the dawn of time. Some have taken it to the extreme,
others more of a liberal point of view. Even in the Judaic religions, the proverb: God helps those who help themselves, has a fundamental concept of
stating, you have to take responsibility for your actions.
It mentions a lack of penance on the part of a person who does something wrong. Believe it or not, even the Penal system that was in the United
States, at one time that was its entire purpose, for a person who broke a law to go and do penance, hard and rough, but penance none the less, to pay
for their crimes and then after the sentence was done, they were released and they could live their life, a free person.

And as much as it is something that I do shudder to state, but many of the main core laws of the country, of all countries around the world, have at
the very creation of such, a religious basis. Rape, murder, and theft, all can be traced back to a religious prohibition of such. Many other laws,
especially those that would segregate or prohibit, also have a strong religious connotation to them. Take a look back at US history, and the very
arguments for the Prohibition of liquor. At the core belief was a religious backing.

Now take a good look at all of the people around the world, the most notable figures in the world today and history, and it seems as those who were
very faithful, to live the message, not just read it, but to let it guide them in their everyday lives, did some of the most remarkable things of all.
Ghandi, a leader who inspired a nation to over throw the yoke of imperialism and strive to be a very peaceful nation. HH the Dali Lama, as much as
the Chinese do not like him and they have had ample opportunity to remove him, like a bad marksman, keep missing the target and he seems to go through
life without a scratch on him. Even the prior pope, John Paul II, for all of his faults, believed and lived the message, as does the current pope.
Are you saying that their belief, the fundamental thing that they work and live by, that they live the message has no effect on their lives, or what
they do, or how it ends up brings something very special to a world? Even figures like Crazy Horse, and Martin Luther King Jr, were devout in their
faith. And it was their faith that directed their actions.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.